make special note of the section entitled "Blastocyst stem cell ethical debate" around half way down the entry. notice that these Blastocysts, from which the stem cells are extracted, are already being legally used by in vitro fertility clinics, "and when not used in additional therapy or in embryonic stem cell research are destroyed or frozen indefinitely by the thousands."
so... rather than actually try to help humankind by destroying a 5 day old clump of cells with no nervous system etc, which will absolutely be destroyed anyway if not used in an actual fertility procedure... let's just hose the whole thing because we're a bunch of bleeding heart religious conservatives with a personal agenda who can't put 2 and 2 together to see how stupid we're being. :-)
Bush pledges to veto stem cell bill - May 23rd 2005
US stem cell research in jeopardy - January 24th 2005
make special note of the last two sentences in that article: The existing rules cited are designed to prevent the destruction of further embryos from which stem cells are extracted. The process has provoked considerable polemic in the US, with George Bush coming down firmly on the side of the antis.
*ahem* let me make this clear...
They're going to be destroyed anyway you clueless dolt. Now because of your ignorant dogmatic politicking, we're going to lose all the possible benefits that might be had.
have I made myself clear?
thanks Chief.
Now, I'm going to head one argument off at the pass by playing the devils advocate here.
<devils_advocate>being frozen indefinitely does not mean destroyed. doing the stem cell extraction procedure on the blastocysts will actually destroy them, whereas being frozen indefinitely doesn't.</devils_advocate>
fair enough I suppose. I don't know enough about the process of storing embryos used in in vitro fertilization procedures. I'd have to ask.
however, we know that not all are even frozen indefinitely (or as the following article states, "for a long time"), but that at least some, if not most are destroyed under the current procedures, and they been handled as such for awhile now I'd guess... but again, I'd have to research more.
so, guess what I'm off to do? ;-)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_vitro_fertilization
ok, just from that, we know that this has been going on since roughly 1978. 27 years now. and while we see that many of the same "concerns" are being raised, obviously this procedure has been allowed to continue because of it's obvious, directly observable, desirable effects... namely, allowing parents who might not be otherwise able, to conceive and bear their own children.
that's the trouble with ignorant people... the more abstract or complicated an issue is, the less likely they are to understand or accept it.
put simply, some of the issues here are:
- lack of knowledge of all the pertinent information.
- lack of ability to comprehend the pertinent information even when available.
- lack of ability to perceive long term benefits.
- desire to adhere to the religious/conservative group ideology.
put very simply, fear of the unknown.
---------
remeber kids, the following things are wrong! now can you tell me why?
- Bypassing the natural method of conception.
- Creating life in the laboratory.
because only the imaginary sky god is supposed to be able to do that! if we can create life ourselves, we're heading down the path of making the imaginary sky god obsolete.
and we just can't have that! we need to stay in the dark ages where intellectual thought and literacy were suppressed to maintain belief in the church (and yes Markavillie, I know that there were mainly "political" motivations behind that, to maintain a power structure dependant on the absolute belief in the Catholic Church as the sole means of communcation with god, the sole channel of biblical learning and hence the sole means of salvation.), the bible, and it's imaginary sky god and outdated, backwards, and downright heinously erroneous ignorant fictitious worldview.
*walks away in disgust*
I'm starting to get pissy, and when I get pissy, I start losing my objectivity. so that's it for now.
6 comments:
Since when do you have objectivity?
I agree with your stance on stem cell research, and I am quite conservative.
However, I do think you sound stupid when you call others names. When I see that, your opinions mean shit.
sorry, the facts speak for themselves. Bush has an absolute lack of deeper understand of almost every major issue faced by the American government today. we're essentially being run by Condoleeza Rice, Karl Rove, Dick Cheney etc. and while I think they're all crooked lying FUCKS... they're all VERY intelligent. frighteningly so in contrast to the President.
while I really dislike or even hate what Bush has done, both in his past and in his presidency, I give him the credit that he honestly does believe he's doing what is right. he is essentially a good man trying to do his best. and while I believe that is very respectable in a man, I think it's dangerous in such a position as the President of what is arguably the most powerful nation on earth.
so yeah, I could sit here and candy coat it all day for people like you, but I think that's a waste of time and you need to grow up and realize that just because you call someone an idiot, it doesn't mean they're not an idiot.
*sheesh*
for the record, I'll show you what I had originally written... I went back and changed it just to make people like you happy, without completely sacrificing what I INTENTIONALLY wanted to say. you can insult someone without being wrong. and you don't have to obfuscate it with obscure big words.
THEY'RE GOING TO BE DESTROYED ANYWAY YOU STUPID FUCKING CLUELESS DOLT. AND NOW BECAUSE OF YOUR STUPID FUCKING IGNORANT ASS, WE'RE GOING TO LOSE ALL THE POSSIBLE MASSIVE BENEFITS THAT MIGHT BE HAD.
it was font size 7, bold, underlined, and in all capitals with excessive swearing.
but you know what? that's how I felt. it's called expressing exactly how I feel.... not pussyfooting around it and watching what words I use to attempt to please someone like yourself who won't even post their name on a discussion because they're an Anonymous Coward.
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=libel
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=slander
maybe you should read those. see the part about it being false? I had a girls father once threaten to take me to court for that. I told him in no uncertain terms exactly what his daughter had done and how easily I could prove it. he never spoke another word about it.
see? there's that pesky problem there... it's called THE TRUTH.
and just in case you're not familiar with that concept: http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=truth
Like I said...I agree with you 100% on the stem cell research.
Hell, I don't agree with much he has done - some, but not much.
But try as hard as you can to at least appear less ignorant buy not calling people names (moron, dolt etc).
hey. I try. I realize that resorting to name calling rather than letting your point stand on it's own both weakens your point and makes you appear less mature, knowledgeable and level headed etc.
but Jeus Christ do Christians piss me off sometimes... ;-P
(s/buy/by)
I am one (sorta), and they offend me too ;-)
I like all the talk shows on the radio (well most anyway, I have yet to find a good liberal one (Air America was more of a joke)). When they start cally people names, or basterdizing their name, I tend to flip the dial.
Ciao, Phreadom.
Post a Comment